BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Tuesday, 01st November 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 39/ 2016
Real Sanitary Wares, Rep. by its
Proprietor Raj Kumar Jain, S/o Mohanlal,
Hindu, age4d 35 years, D.No. 19/416,
S.F.S street, Beside Ashoka Lodge,
Kadapa – 516001, A.P. ………… Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Manager, ANL Parcels Courier Service,
Branch at APSRTC Bus Stand Premises,
Kadapa – 516001, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Claims Manager, ANL Parcels Courier Service,
H.No. 5-9-30/1/5/B, Basheerbagh Palace Colony,
Near Paigolu Plaza, Hyderabad – 500063,
Telangana State. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 25-10-2016 in the presence of Sri K. Ramakondaiah, Advocate for complainant and Sri J. Pullaiah, Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 47,383/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 11-01-2015 till realization, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service, Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant has booked 3 parcels containing sanitary ware goods worth of Rs. 84,150/- on 11-01-2015 during the course of his business to be sent to Sree Manjunatha Swamy Agencies, Adoni, Kurnool District and R1 collected an amount of Rs. 724/- from the Complainant towards goods consignment vide receipt No. 03967063, dt. 11-1-2015. But out of three parcels booked only two parcels were delivered to the consignee. The remaining one parcel containing goods worth of Rs. 47,383/- had not been delivered to the consignee. The Complainant approached O.P.1 and complained about non delivery of the above parcel. He also addressed a letter to the O.P.1 on 20-01-2015. But the Opposite parties have not taken steps to locate the parcel and deliver the same to the consignee. Due to negligence service on the part of the Opposite parties the parcel worth of Rs.47,383/- was not delivered. Therefore, the Opposite parties are bound to make out good the loss caused to the Complainant as here is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and the Opposite parties suffered mental agony and physical strain. The Complainant issued legal notice on 28-3-2016 for payment of above claims. O.P 2 issued reply with false allegations. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed common written version denying the allegations and called upon the Complainant to prove all of them. It is further averred that the Complainant is not a consumer and the transaction was in the course of business. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is also averred that after booking of the said three consignments at O.P1 office O.P.1 loaded three parcels in APSRTC bus by taking signatures of the conductor of the said bus. Hence, APSRTC is a necessary party in the proceedings. The value of undelivered parcel is at Rs. 47,383/- without showing correct value of the undelivered parcels. The O.P.2 office is situated at Hyderabad. Hence, this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is also averred out of three parcels booked by the Complainant two parcels were delivered and one parcel is lost in the transit for the reasons beyond control of the Opposite parties. Therefore, non delivery of one parcel is neither willful nor intentional and there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite parties. As per terms and conditions mentioned on the reverse side of G.C copy in the event of loss / short delivery damages caused to consignment the liability of the Opposite parties is only Rs. 5/- per kg. of consignment. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence reported by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A8 documents are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of the Opposite parties.
6. Heard arguments and perused the record.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is admitted by the Opposite parties that the Complainant booked three parcels through O.P.1 on 11-1-2015 and in turn O.P.1 loaded three parcels in APSRTC bus by taking signatures of the conductor of the said bus to send the same to consignee. According to complaint two parcels are delivered to the consignee and one parcel worth of Rs. 47,383/- was not delivered and inspite of bringing the same to the notice of the Opposite parties they have not traced the same. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for the claims.
8. The Complainant filed Exs. A1 to A8 to prove his claim that the goods worth of Rs. 47,383/- was not delivered to the consignee. He also categorically stated in the legal notice Ex. A5 that goods parcel worth of Rs. 47,383/- was not delivered to the consignee.
9. It is the contention of Opposite parties that the transaction is a commercial one as the parcels are booked during the course of business the complaint is not maintainable. The above contention cannot be sustained because though it is stated in the complaint during course of business the Complainant booked three parcels but the same does not attract the transaction as commercial one, since it is contended by the Complainant that the parcels were booked for his livelihood. Therefore, the transaction of booking parcels by Complainant would not come under the purview of commercial transaction in this case.
10. The other contentions raised by the Opposite parties are that this forum has no jurisdiction as O.P2 is in Hyderabad and reply notice was also issued by him from Hyderabad. This contention also cannot be upheld because O.P.2 is represented by their Manager who is O.P.1 at Kadapa and he received parcels at Kadapa booked by Complainant. Therefore, the transaction in this case happened at Kadapa where O.P.1 carries his business hence, this forum has jurisdiction to entertain this case.
11. The other contentions raised by Opposite parties is that the Complainant is entitled only to pay Rs. 5/- per kg. if any loss damaged, caused to the consignment as per terms and conditions of the receipt of Ex. A1. But the above said terms and conditions in Ex. A1 appears to be against to the public policy and cannot be taken into consideration to discard the claim of Complainant. The Complainant categorically stated in his legal notice and also as per Ex. A3 that the parcel of Rs. 47,383/- was not delivered and inspite of his intimation to the Opposite parties they failed to trace the same and deliver to the consignee. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties for non delivery of the parcel booked by the Complainant in this case. As such we held the Complainant is entitled for value of undelivered consignment worth of Rs. 47,383/-, apart from Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for costs to the Complainant. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
12. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 47,383/- (Rupees forty seven thousand three hundred and eighty three only) towards value of undelivered parcel, Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 01st November 2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Receipt dt. 11-1-2015 bearing No. 03967063 issued by ANL parcel service, Kadapa.
Ex. A2 Letter dt. 20-1-15 given by the Complainant to O.P.2 received O.P1.
Ex. A3 Quotation dt. 20-1-2105 given by the ocm regarding the list of articles worth of Rs. 47,383/- in the parcel not delivered to the consignee.
Ex. A4 Invoice dt. 10-1-2015 for Rs. 84,150/- of three parcels.
Ex. A5 Office copy of legal notice dt. 28-3-2016 along with postal receipts.
Ex. A6 Postal acknowledgements 2 in number
Ex. A7 Reply letter dt. 21-4-2016 given by O.P.2.
Ex. A8 Delivery note cum cash memo dt. 19-1-2015 issued by ANL parcel service Adoni and receipt No. 795069.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri K. Ramakondiaah, Advocate for Complainant.
2) Sri J. Pullaiah, Advocate for Opposite parties.
B.V.P
